I talk with many young people these days, Americans fresh out of college and they all sound like brainwashed droids. College is about developing your own opinion, but actually there is a liberal brainwashing that is going on that bodes badly for the future.

True..........solutions?

@jmmykorea - Get out ! This is way beyond any individuals problem solving abilities. It's a powerhungry cancer and it's been growing since wwll, the jfk assassination, irancontra, okc, 9/11, iraq etc. Eisenhower warned americans it was coming, and here it is ! If the good guys ( commonly called the white hats ) in the services can't stop it, if they've been blackmailed into submission, compromised or assassinated , then it will ultimately led to wwlll, the ultimate elites war over earths last resources to maintain a dying economic model based on fossil fuels. What we're seeing is social collapse, from the inside. This is what collapse looks like from the ants perspective. Possibly similar to what a roman citizen sensed in the first 4 centuries of the first millennium. The inevitable grind of the gears to a halt. And it's intimately tied to ecological collapse of the planet on the grand scale. It appears, from our human perspective, to move slowly and therefore one might have the opinion that they can interject a solution. But it's beyond fixing, because the vast majority of people are ethically compromised and refuse to take a stand. And the powerbrokers , mostly true psychopaths, are only interested in their own greed and survival, with the few whistleblowers as exception. Therefore imho, I'd recommend taking shelter in a non-strategically important location, stay informed , and do the things that make you happy.

It should be obvious to you that wealth creation today is only possible thanks to the efforts of previous generations who, with their taxes, built infrastructure and ensured levels of security, stability and social peace which make commerce possible.

Well again, they've already been compensated... by the profits and livings that they earned. Also, this is getting into the "social contract theory" which I don't care to debunk here right now, but it's logically based on nothing.

If, instead of taxes, you want businesses to pay a user fee each time they use a piece of infrastructure or an existing distribution network that they didn't create and didn't pay for, fine.

I'm not advocating for abolishing all taxes. I'm just saying that there is no real justification for income tax on companies profits... the companies already provide value to society with their products and services. The individuals who run them still pay personal taxes and their property and goods they buy. This quadruple system of taxes is just insane and uncalled for.

There's no mystery about what happens when there is no regulation and taxes are easily avoided. Just check out the Third World sometime, and ask yourself if you'd care to live there, if you weren't already independently wealthy.

This is not due to the lack of regulations and not paying taxes. That is pure propaganda. The unsuccess of the third-world is mostly biological, and due to cultures and behaviors that emerge because of r-type reproduction strategy.

The "whole point of business" may be to make money, but the whole point of society is to create decent living conditions for everyone else.

But what is money? You speak as if it's some arbitrary commodity. Money represents the value of goods and services... you know, the things that actually lead to decent living conditions? You cannot just create "decent living conditions" out of nothing. Living conditions only improve when society is creating more value that it's taking in... aka. profit.

Why would anyone in his right mind want to live under such a system?

I can see the problem in your premises now. You believe that a market-system and capitalism is a "choice"... it's not. Your premises are false in the sense that you're assuming (weather you realize it not not) all systems and societies "work" in nature and all lead to success. This is false. Only certain conditions and certain behaviors lead to successful societies and economies. Societies and civilizations don't just "always exist" no matter what. Collectivism has always lead to corruption and terrible living conditions, the only ALTERNATIVE to this, is free-markets. Nobody picked capitalism because it was their "favorite"... it's just the best bet for society if you wish to avoid a totalitarian state and preserve as much liberty as possible.

@jimmykorea

Most Indie cinema I see is liberal wishwasy claptrap. No one wants to put forward an opinion in a movie that is against the status quo. We are in some sense as censored as China etc.

I'd say even worse... because people don't believe they are being censored. What was once far-left, near communistic values, are now considered "normal" and "moral" by western culture. It's just another cultural-Marxist technique of "moving the goal posts".

Provide evidence for your claims, including examples of functioning states, at any time in human history, which implemented your ideas about how the economy should work, and prospered.

Are you being serious now? What "ideas"? They are not things I'm just making up. It's called free-market economics. Capitalism. Are you implying that I made this up myself? Anyways, the United States 1776-1950's is probably the best example. But how about Singapore? No welfare, no acute poverty, super low tax rate. 1 out of six is a millionaire. Amazing economy. South Korea vs North Korea is probably the most blatant face-smacking example in the world. After WWII, one took the market-economy route and embraced capitalism... the other stayed collectivist/communist. How'd that work out? And like @jimmykorea was saying... many east Asian countries are now becoming economic powerhouses after fallowing the US model of free-market economics and ditching/avoiding collectivism. How about Australia then? New Zealand? This was a really vague statement for you to make. I mean, what was the point? Are you asserting that free-markets have never existed and everything has always been collectivist? Or what?

Similarly, consider the range of governmental choices currently in play -- for example, any number of semi-socialist economies -- and explain why they don't exist because the conviction that they indeed have choices, and have made them, are illusory.

You're again, taking what I (and others) are saying at an extremely literal face-value. Socialist and other Collectivist economies have always "worked" up until the point of failure. Just because something is "working" currently... isn't an indication that it works "in nature". You're just trying to invalidate my "words", not the bigger "concepts" here.

A few posts back the U.S. government, with its meddling in the economy and its taxation was the villain; now it's the ideal model for the rest of the world?

Another straw-man. Again, we started obviously talking about the modern post-1950's United States where welfare, collectivism, and corporate-statism is destroying the economy. That's why I specifically said "United States 1776-1950's" as an example.

Your arguing is absurd. You're resorting to the fact that nobody in the world has really 100% labeled anything as "pure-capitalism" and using this discredit anything I say. I can do the same watch... Sweden you say? Well where would their economy be without exporting technology and good to other market-economies? Therefore, they're still capitalist. This is why we have to use CONCEPTS, instead of rhetoric. Rhetorical arguments are, in essence, appeals to authority.

Is there any consistency between your arguments here, at all?

No, not for you. Because you're apparently aren't comprehending the concepts. You're looking at rhetoric only. I'm not surprised, as this is one of the common brain-washing tactics used by the Marxist Indoctrination Camps (aka American Universities)

You are right about one thing, however: I do take what you're saying at literal face-value

Well, there you go. Maybe this discussion isn't for you then. The rest of us are discussion "concepts" here. Not making straw-man argument, appeals to authority, and arguing over rhetoric. This is not a university debate team.

@bwhitz @jrd

Do no go to personal stuff, please. Keep it about economics.

Time for a Commercial break!

Boy: Mom, all this talk about society and economics is making me anxious and depressed!!

Mom: OK! Take a red pill AND a blue pill...

Announcer: Pfizer: We make BOTH pills!

Then, a few posts later, you're insisting that Sweden is a capitalist economy, and how dare anyone called it "socialist".

I was making the point that you can use rhetoric to inaccurately make points. Sweden is as much "capitalist" as the US was "socialist" (1776-1950). Not having 100% unrestricted capitalism in the US does not then make it collectivist... just like Sweden selling product to market-economies does not really make it capitalist. So you can't invalidate the success countries have had with free-market economics just because there was a tiny presence of socialized programs.

A crisis or reset needs to happen before people wake up to the rot in the US first though.

True. It should have been the banking collapse, they should have been allowed to fail. It would have been bad, but manageable. The further we put off the inevitable... the worse it will be.

My biggest fear is globalisation, not because of globalism itself but the potential for manipulation of a system that has a global reach.

Yes, free global trade is not bad. It's basically what we have now. But a global currency, backed by a global-central bank, will fascism for the entire planet. This is what the Obama regime's plan seems to be...